It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

page: 75
10
<< 72  73  74    76  77  78 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2008 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
I have proof of just how misguided you are about the 2000% thing. You are apparently woefully misinformed about that. Live loads were mainly wind loading, not gravity loads for the towers.


I thought you said you had proof?


But until we get clarification about your claims


I already told you, I don't care what you think. There is no "we."

Before my post just now, you'd probably never even heard of a safety factor. I know there was one idiot posting around here before that was insisting buildings were never over-engineered, but I don't remember who it was. There are enough of them to go around anyway I guess.




posted on May, 12 2008 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


LoL! Coming from a "truther" that is funny.
Shall I compile a list of photos and links on the threads in which they were used that such things are commonly and any request for proof beyond a assurance it's legit are repeatedly ignored?
Hell one thread I saw a picture that was taken MONTHS into the clean up at WTC talked about as if it was not long after the collapse.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 06:27 AM
link   
Oh and Griff. Your full of crap.
Titanic was considered unsinkable.
Allow me to show you an article then more proof.







Screenshots from snopes.com seeing as to how it wouldn't lemme cut and paste.



The Titanic
Why Did People Believe Titanic Was Unsinkable?

It seems incredible to us today that anyone could believe that 70,000 tonnes of steel could be unsinkable, but that was exactly what people in 1912 believed. The information on this page will seek to look at some of the reasons why people at the time had that belief.

The shipbuilders Harland and Wolff insist that the Titanic was never advertised as an unsinkable ship. They claim that the 'unsinkable' myth was the result of people's interpretations of articles in the Irish News and the Shipbuilder magazine. They also claim that the myth grew after the disaster.

Yet, when the New York office of the White Star Line was informed that Titanic was in trouble, White Star Line Vice President P.A.S. Franklin announced " We place absolute confidence in the Titanic. We believe the boat is unsinkable." By the time Franklin spoke those words Titanic was at the bottom of the ocean. It would seem that the White Star Line President was also influenced by the 'myth'.

It is difficult to discover exactly where or when the term 'unsinkable' was first used. Listed below are some possibilities.

Publicity brochure for Titanic

An extract from a White Star Line publicity brochure produced in 1910 for the twin ships Olympic and Titanic which states ??these two wonderful vessels are designed to be unsinkable. Some sources state that this wording was used on an advertising flyer while others point to an illustrated brochure. The White Star Line insist that the words used in the publicity brochure (shown right) only point to Titanic's being designed to be unsinkable, not that it was claimed to be unsinkable.

On June 1, 1911, the Irish News and Belfast Morning News contained a report on the launching of Titanic's hull. The article described the system of watertight compartments and electronic watertight doors and concluded that Titanic was practically unsinkable.

In 1911, Shipbuilder magazine published an article on the White Star Line's sister ships Titanic and Olympic. The article described the construction of the ship and concluded that Titanic was practically unsinkable.

"God himself could not sink this ship!" This quotation, made famous by Cameron's film, is reputed to have been the answer given by a deck hand when asked if Titanic was really unsinkable.

Whatever the origin of the belief, there is no doubt that people did believe Titanic to be unsinkable.

Passenger Margaret Devaney said "I took passage on the Titanic for I thought it would be a safe steamship and I had heard it could not sink."

Another passenger, Thomson Beattie, wrote home "We are changing ships and coming home in a new unsinkable boat."

It was the beginning of the twentieth century and people had absolute faith in new science and technology. They believed that science in the twentieth century could and would provide answers to solve all problems.

The sinking of the 'unsinkable' Titanic shattered much confidence in science and made people more sceptical about such fantastic claims.
[

Source: www.historyonthenet.com...






Now you wished to claim that all designer's claims are true?
Or just what you say the Twin Tower's designers have said?
Considering I saw one on a show on the discovery channel recently not saying anything of the sort.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I just thought I'd post this example showing how kinetic energy can create immense damage when the energy is released. This is a proposed KED (Kinetic Energy Device).


Gee if you are going to post an example at least try to keep it close to what the OP is about. NOT something so totally different.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
I have proof of just how misguided you are about the 2000% thing. You are apparently woefully misinformed about that. Live loads were mainly wind loading, not gravity loads for the towers.


I think you are the 1 that is misinformed.


Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.



[edit on 12-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
And lookie here.
It's PLANE DEBRIS!!!!
Ooooo ahhhhhhhh..........


So what source do you have that states what plane the debris is from .

What is the phtos sourec, Photogrpher, date and time time taken?

If you have no sources the photo is not evidnece.

[edit on 12-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I think you are the 1 that is misinformed.


And I think that you have never been a crewchief on an F-4, unless you have a source to back up your claims of an F-4 being mostly steel.

Here's the post that you never answered:


www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by ULTIMA1

WRONG, i base my statments on being a crew chief on the RF-4 in the Air Force.

Also if you believe my numebrs are wrong about the structure of an F-4 then please be adult enough to post evidence th debate my statements.



Ok, I will.

www.vectorsite.net...

"The Phantom was made mostly of aviation aluminum alloys, but about 10% of the aircraft was built of titanium"

Empty weight 30,000 lbs

Mostly aviation aluminum alloys. Hmmmmm.

Engines are 3800 lbs. Even if I'm very generous and say that they are 75% steel by weight, that's only 20% of the entire plane's dry weight. So the airframe without engines would have to be 31% steel by weight for the entire plane to be "mostly steel".

Please post your independently corroborated evidence to prove your point or admit that you were either:

a- knowingly making a grossly inaccurate statement

or

b- were never a crew chief for an F-4 and have been making this up.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
And I think that you have never been a crewchief on an F-4, unless you have a source to back up your claims of an F-4 being mostly steel.


Well you think wrong.

I have also posted a quote of what is made of steel and titanium, and that if you include the engines the F-4 is mostly made of steel.

The engines should be included beacuse they are intermal and would make a difference when hitting a wall rather then like the 757 with the engines external.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Once again, you're trying to employ a negative-proof fallacy. You, yourself, have never provided photographs with the kinds of citations you're now demanding from others. Until you go and properly annotate and cite your own myriad photographs posted here, you have no basis for demanding that level of citation from others.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by KarmaIncarnate
You, yourself, have never provided photographs with the kinds of citations you're now demanding from others.


Becasue i am not the one who claimed to have photos, you are.

So if you cannot support your photos with proper sources that they are not evidecne, simple as that.

[edit on 12-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So if you cannot support your photos with proper sources that they are not evidecne, simple as that.


You're trying to use a straw man fallacy here. The photos were properly cited, you're simply rejecting the citations because you can't rebuke the evidence they display. Again, your attempts to defend a weak position are cute, but please try harder.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Oh and Griff. Your full of crap.
Titanic was considered unsinkable.

Wow.
What has the Titanic got to do with this thread, which is a thread about evidence for 9/11, not about the sinking of a passenger boat!



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
I just thought I'd post this example showing how kinetic energy can create immense damage when the energy is released. This is a proposed KED (Kinetic Energy Device).


Gee if you are going to post an example at least try to keep it close to what the OP is about. NOT something so totally different.



Sorry you don't get the similarity. Let me explain. You see, my only point is that when you have something flying at a high velocity, and it hits something, it can release tremendous amounts of energy regardless of what it hits. That being said, lets say a big plane traveling at a high speed hit a building.... It's large mass would create a lot of damage.

Also, you could have simply ignored the post if you didn't find it useful......duh

[edit on 12-5-2008 by jfj123]



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I have also posted a quote of what is made of steel and titanium, and that if you include the engines the F-4 is mostly made of steel.

The engines should be included beacuse they are intermal and would make a difference when hitting a wall rather then like the 757 with the engines external.



I've seen all your sources. None of them say that it's mostly steel, or in any way even come close backing up your statement. At best, they say that there are a few steel pieces, nothing more.

Therefore, even though you may have been a crewchief, you knowingly said something that you know to be wrong. There's a word for that.

Your credibility is ZERO.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Your credibility is ZERO.


Well I have to disagree. Ultima1 has never misstated ANYTHING. Whilst his/her views may not be as radical as mine -- due to a more carefully skeptic nature perhaps -- all of Ultima's posts are rock-solid. And this person is one of the most consistent posters on ATS.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA, here's a photo of a CF6, common on widebodies such as the B767 and B747.

upload.wikimedia.org...


Obviously much larger than an Rb211-535 series as used on the B757. For some reason you've been going on about the F-4....and steel content, can't for the life of me understand why...

The RB211-535 series engine is a three-shaft high bypass turbo fan.

Basic core weight is anout 7,300 pounds
Length is 118 inches, the N1 fan diameter is 74 inches.

Of course, the N1 fan consists of a central titanium hub, maybe about 14 inchs in diameter, and each blades is individually mounted. They are an aluminum alloy, not titanium.

The compressor section is twelve stages total, six IP and six HP. As you know, the compressor and turbine sections are not very large in diameter...and they are not solid pieces, in most cases (you can hear the blades 'tinkle' as the engine windmills on the ground).

After the Compressor, there is a single annular combustion chamber, then five more stages of turbines...the 'hot' section....

Finally, most of what appears to be a massive engine is mostly empty air, surrounded by a mostly carbon composite nacelle.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Your credibility is ZERO.


Thats funny coming from soneone that cannot post any real evidnece to support their claims of the official story.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
For some reason you've been going on about the F-4....and steel content, can't for the life of me understand why...


Becasue of the comparision some peopl use of the F-4 experiment with the special reinforced wall and a 757 that supposidly hit the Pentagon.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Your credibility is ZERO.


Well I have to disagree. Ultima1 has never misstated ANYTHING. Whilst his/her views may not be as radical as mine -- due to a more carefully skeptic nature perhaps -- all of Ultima's posts are rock-solid. And this person is one of the most consistent posters on ATS.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Unfortunately this is not true. He's made statements that have been proven patently false. Even when shown proof by multiple sources, he refused to bend on FACTS given to him. That's not rock solid on this planet.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weedwhacker
For some reason you've been going on about the F-4....and steel content, can't for the life of me understand why...


Becasue of the comparision some peopl use of the F-4 experiment with the special reinforced wall and a 757 that supposidly hit the Pentagon.



So that wall which I believe was based on a re-enforced nuclear reactor building, was made the same was as the outer wall at the Pentagon?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 72  73  74    76  77  78 >>

log in

join